07.02.2015 Views

Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

the Korean War to release repressed memories, detect soldier malingering, and<br />

conduct prisoner of war (POW) interrogations (Odesho, 2004). During the 1950s<br />

and 1960s, a U.S. intelligence agency had active programs of developing and<br />

testing drugs with truth serum properties, such as LSD (Select Committee on<br />

<strong>Intelligence</strong>, 1977).<br />

Potential<br />

Truth serums do not force the subject to tell the truth. Instead, they typically<br />

cause the subject to become more talkative. Thus, although a subject’s inhibitions<br />

have been lowered, there is no guarantee that any of the information elicited will<br />

be accurate. Given that none of these substances has been shown to be 100%<br />

effective in obtaining truthful information, there has been much dispute regarding<br />

the legality and ethical implications of their use. State v. Pitts was a precedentsetting<br />

case on the admissibility of sodium amytal interview evidence. The New<br />

Jersey Supreme Court concluded in 1989 that:<br />

This evidence [sodium amytal] was excluded by the trial court.<br />

The Court now predicates its approval of the trial court’s<br />

exclusion of this evidence on two factors: the use of the<br />

sodium amytal interview as a means to ascertain the “truth” of<br />

defendant’s belief or motive for killing the victim…<br />

The experts further concurred that the results of a sodium<br />

amytal interview are not considered scientifically reliable for<br />

the purpose of ascertaining truth as such. Nevertheless, the<br />

results of sodium amytal are useful (Supreme Court of New<br />

Jersey, 1989).<br />

Although other jurisdictions reject the admissibility of truth serum interview<br />

evidence for the purpose of establishing truth in a legal setting, the use of these<br />

drugs for interrogation purposes has been reconsidered in the wake of recent<br />

terrorist activities (Odesho, 2004; Keller, 2005). The Department of Justice’s<br />

Office of Legal Counsel sent a memorandum to the President in 2002, suggesting<br />

that such use might be permissible (Bybee, 2002).<br />

Throughout history, truth serums have been correlated with abusive<br />

interrogations and involuntary confessions (Winter, 2005). Article 17 of the<br />

1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War places<br />

restrictions on the detainment powers that may be used to interrogate POWs;<br />

however, the language does not outlaw the use of truth serums (Geneva<br />

Convention, 1949). Given that this international law applies only to prisoners of<br />

war, the interpretation of POW status will likely further cloud the legal and ethical<br />

debate surrounding the resurgence of truth serums.<br />

Neurological Mechanisms<br />

Dissatisfaction with the lack of a clear causal chain from the psychological<br />

decision to deceive, to the autonomic functions (e.g., skin conductance,<br />

respiration) currently measured by the polygraph, has led some researchers to<br />

74

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!